Cumnock (in Scotland) is a village about 16 miles away from Ayr.
Cumnock has a population of about 13,000, whereas Ayr’s is over 46,000.
The DSA, as part of it’s streamlining efforts, decided to close the Cumnock test centre and move operations to the one in Ayr.
As you can see from the picture, the Cumnock test centre consists of a terraced two-up-two-down with a sign stuck on it. What you probably don’t see is the limited parking, and the overheads associated with the property (rent, heating, staffing, etc.).
The Cumnock Chronicle – circulation: not much – says:
A petition spearheaded by Karen Russell from Cairn Road, Cumnock amassed more than 2,000 signatures. But the Driving Standards Agency went ahead with their plans and shut the practical test centre on Friday, January 28.
So far, so good. Commonsense prevailed. However:
Transport Minister Mike Penning blasted the DSA’s decision to move to Ayr as a “Soviet style system” and made assurances that learners will be able to sit their practical driving test in Cumnock.
What a monumentally stupid decision. They’re trying to cut back on spending, trying to remove quangos, and then they do something like this.
Some people are just beyond words. Jin Su – a learner driver – was so desperate to pass her test that she tried to bribe a driving examiner by handing him nearly £500 in cash. The story is also covered by the Daily Mail.
When he refused, she attacked him.
When Driving Standards Agency examiner Keith Ashcroft refused the the cash and terminated the driving test, Su got angry and attacked him in the street.
She grabbed his wrists and tried to push him back into the car, shouting: “I want the test to continue!” When quizzed after her arrest she said the money was to bring good luck, but later admitted it was a bribe.
She’s been found guilty. But the usual mitigating circumstance – she’s pregnant – was bandied about and so she’s gotten off with 50 hours of unpaid community work and has to pay £100 compensation to the examiner.
I’m surprised she wasn’t handed a test pass as well.
It’s not much of a deterrent, is it? The DSA quite rightly takes abuse of its staff very seriously, but how can it matter if people like Jin Su get away with these paltry punishments?
But the biggest irony is that – as is usual among these idiots who try to cheat their way through life – she could have used the money to pay for a few more lessons and learn to drive properly. She can’t be much of a mother if she is prepared to drive her kids around, and yet is not a good enough driver to pass the test legitimately.
Mercedes-Benz is opening a driving school in the US for teenagers, so that they can learn to drive in a Mercedes. DriveOn sets the scene:
Already, we take pity on some of the world’s most admired cars — the hard braking, the skidding tires, the reckless disregard they will endure from gum-snapping teens. They are sure to text every detail about how they gave their instructors whiplash with sudden stops or jolted them by driving over curbs.
Does that sound like it fits in with the current American concerns over distracted driving? It simply glorifies reckless behaviour. DriveOn also mentions the likely prohibitive pricing, meaning that only those who can afford it will be able to take advantage. Indeed, the same story covered in Edmunds Inside Line reveals what could be a cynical tie-in with this problem:
The German automaker told Inside Line that a key component of the program will be to reduce driver distraction.
Yeah, right! Like Mercedes-Benz hasn’t been planning this from way before the time when the distracted driving issue hit the American media. Prices are likely to be anywhere from $500 for a single day up to more than $3,000 for a three-day course. It’s hard to find out what American driving instructors charge, but everything points to it having several fewer zeroes at the end than this! MotorTrend makes it clear what it’s really about:
In news that’s sure to excite teens and parents from the Hamptons to Beverly Hills, and wealthy suburbs from coast-to-coast…
It also points out that a similar “academy” already exists in the UK. Does this mean, therefore, that the UK version doesn’t deal with distracted driving? After all, the UK one was set up over a year ago – also well before America started identifying distraction as a real problem for them
MotorTrend also reports the idiotic claim that this UK “academy” raised the first-time pass rate from 43% to 79%. It did no such thing! Automobile Magazine also reports this complete and utter nonsense:
A similar program in the UK has been offered for several years, and proved effective in increasing the first-time license exam pass rate from 43 to 79 percent.
Raised it in relation to what? In relation to whom? My first time pass rate over the last 20 tests is above 80%, yet it is clear that the “academy” is deliberately hinting that only it can do it, and that its course is directly responsible.
Such schools are elitist. Only the wealthy can afford them – the Americans are clear on that even before it starts trading. There’s nothing wrong with this of course – but just come clean and admit it. Don’t start making stupid claims about philanthropic ideals.
It is a business aimed at the wealthy. Nothing it teaches is missing from the syllabus any other driving instructor has at their disposal. Nothing it does is better than the what the typical good instructor teaches. That’s all there is to it.
According to HeraldScotland, young drivers could face curbs on late-night driving, post-test training, and have to drive cars fitted with monitoring equipment if proposals to cut deaths on Scottish roads come to anything.
That’s the good part. The bad part is that everyone else would have to pay for it via an insurance premium.
Apparently, Scotland has seen over 30 deaths of people between the ages of 17 and 25 every year between 2005 and 2009, and they represent more than a third of all deaths.
The report says that in the UK as a whole, around half of accidents involving young people occur at night compared to 35% for older drivers. Personally, I’m not convinced that this is a particularly large difference – though it IS significant when you start talking about deaths.
The report adds that young drivers are most at risk between 4pm and midnight weekdays, and midnight to 2am at weekends. From where I’m sitting, it looks like someone has decided that making them all drive between 8am and 4pm during the week will somehow improve things!
The reason they have accidents mostly after 4pm is that they’re out of school or work then, and the real problems – their lack of skill and their attitudes – come to the fore.
It should come as no surprise to learn that 83% of youngsters were opposed to night curfews (i.e. 17% supported it). Surprisingly, only 27% of parents thought it was a good idea and 46% opposed it (though HeraldScotland words that differently).
Brake has its own ideas (graduated licensing). IAM reckons it couldn’t be enforced. And the RAC Foundation said lower insurance premiums would be more effective (go figure that one)!
Addendum:
I’ve had an email from the RAC Foundation in response to this topic:
What we said was that insurance is already prohibitively high for many people creating the danger that more and more motorists drive uninsured. There are some policies which restrict the times drivers can take to the road – i.e. the dangerous times – and in return get a cut in their premiums. That means we have more people insured and less young people on the roads at the riskiest periods of day and night. Simply hiking insurance costs does not mean the most dangerous drivers are priced off the road.
I should point out that all HeraldScotland quotes the Foundation as saying is:
If young people can save money they are more likely to limit their behaviour.
And nothing more. When it is worded like that, I disagree entirely. It sounds like a proposal to reward people who are behaving badly without trying to alter their behaviour in any way. After all, having to pay high insurance is no excuse for driving dangerously.
However, the additional explanation the Foundation has provided makes more sense up to a point. I agree that providing restrictive conditions in return for insurance cover for dangerous (and potentially dangerous or naïve) drivers is a good idea – but only if it uses black box technology to enforce it. Without such enforcement, conditional insurance is equivalent to no insurance, because it WILL be abused.
If hiking insurance doesn’t keep dangerous drivers off the roads, how can lowering premiums do it?
The underlying problem is with attitude and behaviour, and no matter what you do with insurance premiums, unless you change those attitudes and behaviours then you aren’t addressing the problem!
Of course, the claims these now-insured dangerous drivers spawn will have to be covered by everyone else’s policies being hiked. The money has to come from somewhere.
The only way we’re ever going to stop these idiots killing themselves – and others – is either by changing the way they drive, or by not letting them drive in the first place, There is no middle option.
Well, it just goes to show then, doesn’t it. They’re NOT much different to blokes when the fancy takes them!
This Press Association story – which will probably be fleshed out and exaggerated once the Daily Mail et al get a hold of it – says that ONE THIRD (35%) of young female drivers would consider driving uninsured if their premiums go up.
A further 12% said they’d have to give up driving, and 11% said they’d have to get a second job to pay for it.
So. Just like the lads, really.
Apparently, 34% of men think the new rule is “unfair”. Just for the record, that means 66% DON’T think it’s unfair.
John McDonagh of Quinn-direct demonstrates the perfect example of a circular argument when he says:
It is evident from the research that motorists are not happy with the proposed changes… clearly feel that the measures pose no benefit whatsoever to motorists.
and follows it up with:
It is shocking that many young drivers would consider driving without insurance…
Maybe he should consider that those who are prepared to drive uninsured really aren’t the safe drivers companies like his have previously favoured.
Or, I wonder if he is thinking of how much revenue his company will lose if suddenly around 50% of his clients (34% + 12% from the above survey results) suddenly don’t buy insurance?
A package of measures to tackle drink and drug driving was announced today by Transport Secretary Philip Hammond.
Improved testing equipment to detect drink and drug drivers will be given the green light and key changes made to streamline enforcement of both offences.
The government will also examine the case for a new specific drug driving offence – alongside the existing one – which would remove the need for the police to prove impairment on a case-by-case basis where a specified drug has been detected.
The measures are set out in the government’s response to the North Report on Drink and Drug Driving, which was published last year.
The prescribed alcohol limit for driving will not be changed, with the focus instead on improving enforcement and education to tackle the drink and drug drivers who put lives at risk.
Phlip Hammond said:
“Drink and drug driving are serious offences and we are determined to ensure they are detected and punished effectively.
“It is just as dangerous to drive impaired by drugs as alcohol so we need to send a clear message that drug drivers are as likely to be caught as drink drivers and that drug driving is as socially unacceptable as drink driving has become. That is why we will approve drug-testing devices and change the law to speed up the testing process, ensuring the police can bring drug drivers to justice.
“The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75 per cent since 1979. But drink driving still kills hundreds of people so we need to take tough action against the small minority of drivers who flagrantly ignore the limit. Their behaviour is entrenched and after careful consideration we have concluded that improving enforcement is likely to have more impact on these dangerous people than lowering the limit.
“We are therefore taking forward a package of measures which will streamline enforcement, helping the police to target these most dangerous offenders and protect law-abiding road users.”
On drink driving the government will:
revoke the right for people whose evidential breath test result is less than 40% over the limit to opt for a blood test (the ‘statutory option’). The breath testing equipment used in police stations is now very accurate and technically sophisticated so a blood sample is not needed to confirm the breath test. The need to organise a blood sample can mean that drivers who were over the limit when breath tested have fallen below the limit by the time their blood sample is taken – removing the statutory option will eliminate this loophole
introduce a more robust drink drive rehabilitation scheme, so that we can require those drink drivers who are substantially in excess of the limit to take remedial training and a linked driving assessment before recovering their licence
approve portable evidential breath testing equipment for the police – this will speed up the testing process and free up police time
close a loophole used by high risk offenders to delay their medical examinations
streamline the procedure for testing drink drivers in hospital
On drug driving the Government will:
approve preliminary drug-testing equipment – initially for use in police stations, and at the roadside as soon as possible. The Home Office is currently testing six drug-testing devices and hopes to be able to take decisions on type-approval by the end of June.
allow custody nurses to advise the police whether or not a suspected driver has a condition that may be due to a drug. This will remove the need to call out police doctors and so speed up the testing process – ensuring that drug drivers do not escape punishment because a doctor is not available and also freeing up police time.
examine the case for a new specific drug driving offence – alongside the existing one – which would remove the need for the police to prove impairment on a case-by-case basis where a specified drug has been detected.
The full response to the North Report, which also includes the Department’s response to the Transport Select Committee’s report on the same subject, has been published today at http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/drivinglaws/.
The AXA Insurance information says that of the stop-starters, only 20% of them were able to drive to a standard that would pass the test, even though they had all recently passed.
Only 45% were confident they remembered what they’d been taught. But 28% said they remembered nothing! Of regular drivers, 72% said they remembered all or most of what they’d learnt.
On road knowledge:
45% didn’t know the maximum speed on the motorway
46% didn’t know what a No Waiting sign looked like
23% thought that the No Overtaking sign meant you COULD overtake
73% didn’t know what a zig-zag line meant
On confidence, only 11% described themselves as confident, compared to 54% of regular drivers. Although 41% thought a refresher course would be a good idea, but that was split between 33% of men and 46% of women.
As far as having accidents goes, although they spent less time on the road they still had at least as many bumps as regular drivers of the same age group. As I said in that last article:
those who drive once or twice a month are FIVE TIMES more likely to have had FOUR own-fault bumps than those who drive daily
they were 14 TIMES more likely to have had FIVE own-fault bumps
they were 11 TIMES more likely to be uninsured when they had those bumps
This is a scary story from the Derry Journal. A female instructor was conducting a lesson when her car was attacked by a lunatic.
Police are appealing for witnesses. No one was hurt and no damage was done.
I must say that the police statement and the witness statement look like descriptions of two completely different incidents:
A PSNI spokesperson said: “Police in Derry received a report of rowdy nuisance in the Duke Street area on Friday March 18.
“Around 8pm a male, who appeared to be intoxicated, hit the window of a parked red Volkswagen car twice. Two people were in the car at the time. Anyone with information can contact police on 0845 600 8000.”
A female driving instructor was left shaken after her car was attacked by a member of the public while giving a lesson on Duke Street on Friday.
The woman, who did not want to be named, said the incident left her “shaking with fear” and added that she will never return to the area after dark.
“I was at the beginning of a lesson near the test centre when I noticed a man near the walkway beside the river Foyle staring at us. When he started to make his way towards the car I knew that something wasn’t right. I told the learner driver to lock the doors and it was then that the man started to try and smash the driver’s side window in.”
The woman said that the man appeared intoxicated and explained that if it had not been for the intervention of a couple passing by the man would have continued with his assault.
“I was shaking with fear – his eyes were sticking out of his head – he must have been drunk or on drugs.
“A man and woman were walking past the driving centre and thankfully chased him away.”
She added: “I would call on all other driving instructors to be vigilant and exercise common sense when taking lessons there – especially when it’s dark.”
I wrote recently about how Montana (USA) had rejected a bill to make texting while driving illegal. It’s impossible to fathom the logic used to come to the effective conclusion that texting while driving is OK.
transporting children in open beds of trucks prohibited
You’d think logic and commonsense would make these a foregone conclusion, wouldn’t you? Well, the votes are surprisingly close and there is a lot of debate on that last one. They are not foregone conclusions at all.
Cumnock (in Scotland) is a village about 16 miles away from Ayr.
That’s the good part. The bad part is that everyone else would have to pay for it via an insurance premium.